Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-j824f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-12T12:50:17.993Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Indicators in the ASEANstats Statistical Regime: A Case-Study on the Need for Accountability, Participation, and Transparency in International Governance by Indicators

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 February 2015

Matthew KOH
Matthew KOH*
Affiliation:
Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP, Singaporematthew.koh@rajahtann.com
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Indicators are an important but often underrated means of international governance, with the power to regulate the thinking and conduct of international actors. This power should not go unregulated or unsupervised. Hence, this paper seeks to analyze ASEAN indicators from the viewpoint of global administrative law, and to consider the ways in which ASEAN indicators may possess regulatory characteristics. The paper reflects on the need to ensure that ASEAN indicators are generated in a way that is sufficiently transparent and accountable, and that allows participation from their targets, so that such indicators may be used constructively within ASEAN.

Type
Articles
Information
Asian Journal of International Law , Volume 6 , Issue 1 , January 2016 , pp. 159 - 191
Copyright
Copyright © Asian Journal of International Law 2015 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

Advocate and Solicitor (Singapore). Associate, Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP. I wish to thank Professors Benedict Kingsbury and Eyal Benvenisti of the New York University School of Law for comments on an earlier draft.

References

1. DAVIS, Kevin E., KINGSBURY, Benedict, and MERRY, Sally Engle, “Indicators as a Technology of Global Governance” in Kevin E. DAVIS, Angelina FISHER, Benedict KINGSBURY, and Sally Engle MERRY, eds., Governance by Indicators: Global Power Through Quantification and Rankings (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, 3 at 4.

2. DAVIS, Kevin E., KINGSBURY, Benedict, and MERRY, Sally Engle, “Indicators as a Technology of Global Governance”, Institute of International Law and Justice, Working Paper 2010/2 Rev., finalized 8 February 2011 at 4Google Scholar.

3. Ibid., at 11.

4. Sally Engle MERRY, “The Problem of Human Rights Indicators”, online: University of Victoria, Consortium on Democratic Constitutionalism <http://www.law.uvic.ca/demcon/2012%20readings/Chapter%203%20Problem%20of%20HR%20indicators.pdf> at 17–19.

5. Davis, et al., supra note 1 at 8–9Google Scholar.

6. See KINGSBURY, Benedict, KRISCH, Nico, and STEWART, Richard B., “The Emergence of Global Administrative Law” (2005) 68 Law and Contemporary Problems 15Google Scholar.

7. The ten members of ASEAN are Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore, Thailand (five members which founded ASEAN in 1967), Brunei Darussalam (joined in 1984), Vietnam (joined in 1995), the Lao PDR (joined in 1997), Myanmar (joined in 1997), and Cambodia (joined in 1999). The membership of Timor-Leste is pending.

8. “About ASEANstats”, online: ASEANweb <http://www.aseansec.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/About-ASEANStats.pdf> [About ASEANstats].

9. “ASEAN Framework of Cooperation in Statistics”, online: ASEAN <http://www.asean.org/archive/stat/AFCS.pdf> at 2 [ASEAN Framework of Cooperation in Statistics].

10. “ASEAN Statistical Yearbook 2010” (Jakarta: ASEAN Secretariat, 2010), online: ASEANweb <http://www.aseansec.org/publications/asean_statistical_2010.pdf> [ASEAN Statistical Yearbook 2010].

11. Since this paper was first written, ASEANstats published the “ASEAN Statistical Yearbook 2013” (Jakarta: ASEAN Secretariat, 2014), online: ASEANweb <http://www.asean.org/images/resources/Statistics/2014/StatisticalPublications/asean%20stattistical%20yearbook%202013%20(publication).pdf>, containing 216 indicators. It covers the same categories, and there were no material changes in the structure or organization of the indicators published.

12. Ibid., at iii.

13. About ASEANstats, supra note 8.

14. “Joint Media Statement of the Eleventh ASEAN Heads of Statistical Offices Meeting (AHSOM 11)”, Ha Noi (8–9 December 2010), online: ASEANweb <http://www.asean.org/news/asean-statement-communiques/item/joint-media-statement-of-the-eleventh-asean-heads-of-statistical-offices-meeting-ahsom-11-ha-noi-8-9-december-2010>.

15. DAVIDSON, Paul J., “The ASEAN Way and the Role of Law in ASEAN Economic Cooperation” (2004) 8 Singapore Year Book of International Law 165 at 166Google Scholar.

16. Ibid., at 167.

17. Ibid., at 167. The notion that Western international institutions prefer formal legalism as a mode of decision-making may be an oversimplification to the extent that consensus-based decision-making undoubtedly plays a significant role in such institutions as well. See, for example, HEISENBERG, Dorothee, “The Institution of ‘Consensus’ in the European Union: Formal Versus Informal Decision-making in the Council” (2005) 44 European Journal of Political Research 65CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

18. See, for example, a critique in the context of environmental regulation, Lian, KOH Kheng and ROBINSON, Nicholas A., “Strengthening Sustainable Development in Regional Inter-Governmental Governance: Lessons from the ‘ASEAN Way’ ” (2002) 6 Singapore Journal of International and Comparative Law 640 at 676–679Google Scholar. Similar criticisms have been raised recently following ASEAN's seeming inability to reach a common position between its members over territorial disputes in the South China Sea. See, for example, “ASEAN and the South China Sea” (30 July 2012), online: East Asia Forum <http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2012/07/30/asean-and-the-south-china-sea/>.

19. See, for example, MILL, John Stuart, Considerations of Representative Government (London: Parker, Son, & Bourn, 1891)Google Scholar, on how consultative leadership can, in some situations, be inimical to decisive action. He writes (in chapter V, “Of the Proper Functions of Representative Bodies”):

No body of men, unless organized and under command, is fit for action, in the proper sense. Even a select board, composed of few members, and these specially conversant with the business to be done, is always an inferior instrument to some one individual who could be found among them, and would be improved in character if that one person were made the chief, and all the others reduced to subordinates. What can be done better by a body than by any individual is deliberation. When it is necessary or important to secure hearing and consideration to many conflicting opinions, a deliberative body is indispensable. Those bodies, therefore, are frequently useful, even for administrative business, but in general only as advisers; such business being, as a rule, better conducted under the responsibility of one.

20. See, for example, TOJE, Asle, “The Consensus-Expectations Gap: Explaining Europe's Ineffective Foreign Policy” (2008) 39 Security Dialogue 121CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

21. See, for example, a speech by a former Secretary-General of ASEAN: “Sovereignty, Intervention and the ASEAN Way” (3 July 2000), online: ASEAN <http://www.asean.org/resources/2012-02-10-08-47-56/speeches-statements-of-the-former-secretaries-general-of-asean/item/sovereignty-intervention-and-the-asean-way-3-july-2000>.

22. ASEAN Statistical Yearbook 2010, supra note 10 at 2.

23. “Key Indicators for Asia and the Pacific”, online: Asian Development Bank <http://www.adb.org/publications/series/key-indicators-for-asia-and-the-pacific>.

24. Human Development Report Office's Library | Human Development Reports, online UNDP <http://hdr.undp.org/en/reports>.

25. Ibid., at 4.

26. Ibid., at 4.

27. Millennium Development Goals | UNDP, online: UNDP <http://www.undp.org/content/undp/en/home/librarypage/mdg/>.

28. Ibid., at 8.

29. Ibid., at 20–4. The LABORSTA Database can be accessed at “LABORSTA Internet (E)”, online: International Labour Organization <http://laborsta.ilo.org/>.

30. “ASEAN Economic Community Chartbook 2011”, online: ASEANweb <http://www.asean.org/images/archive/documents/ASEAN%20Economic%20Community%20Chartbook%202011.pdf>.

31. “ASEAN Community in Figures ACIF 2011”, online: ASEANweb <http://www.asean.org/images/archive/documents/ASEAN%20community%20in%20figures.pdf> [ASEAN Community in Figures].

32. IMF WEO Databases may be accessed at “IMF World Economic Outlook Database List”, online: IMF <http://www.imf.org/external/ns/cs.aspx?id=28>.

33. Merry, , supra note 4 at 68Google Scholar.

34. Davis, et al., supra note 2 at 46–47Google Scholar.

35. Merry, , supra note 4 at 11–12Google Scholar.

36. ASEAN Framework of Cooperation in Statistics, supra note 9 at 2.

37. See, for example, the “Europe 2020 Indicators”, online: European Commission <http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/europe_2020_indicators/headline_indicators>, produced by Eurostat, the statistical division of the European Commission.

38. ASEAN Statistical Yearbook 2010, supra note 10 at iii.

39. ASEAN Framework of Cooperation in Statistics, supra note 9 at 2.

40. DUTTA, Nikhil K., “Accountability in the Generation of Governance Indicators” (2010) 22 Florida Journal of International Law 401Google Scholar.

41. Ibid., at 422.

42. Ibid., at 456.

43. Ibid.

44. Ibid., at 460.

45. Ibid.

46. Ibid., at 461.

47. Ibid., at 456.

48. This criticism was raised when controversy swirled around whether Myanmar should take over the ASEAN chairmanship in 2006; see, for example, “Press Statement: ASEAN Chair 2006: Region's Credibility at Stake” (25 July 2005), online: ASEAN Inter-Parliamentary Myanmar Caucus <http://seaca.net/viewArticle.php?aID=393>. This controversy arose because of Myanmar's poor human rights record. Myanmar subsequently agreed to forgo its turn at the ASEAN chairmanship; see “Myanmar Give Up 2006 ASEAN Chairmanship” New York Times (26 July 2005), online: New York Times <http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/26/world/asia/26iht-web.0726asean.html>.

49. “What we do-AMRO”, online: AMRO <http://www.amro-asia.org/about-amro/overview/what-we-do/>.

50. “Ministry of Finance-The Establishment of the Chiang Mai Initiative Multilateralization (Joint Press Release)” (28 December 2009), online: Ministry of Finance, Singapore <http://app.mof.gov.sg/TemNewsroomDetail.aspx?pagesid=20090924508092100125&pagemode=live&news_sid=20091228858850831466&AspxAutoDetectCookieSupport=1>.

51. “How we do-AMRO”, online: AMRO <http://www.amro-asia.org/about-amro/overview/how-we-do/>.

52. “Regional Surveillance for Economic Stability”, online: ADB <http://aric.adb.org/pdf/aem/dec09/Dec_AEM_special.pdf> at 55. This was confirmed in an email from AMRO in response to this author's request for access to the economic surveillance reports.

53. See “CMIM Contributions, Purchasing Multiple, Maximum Swap Amount, and Voting-Power Distribution Fact Sheet”, online: AMRO <http://www.amro-asia.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Fact-Sheet-at-AFMGM+3-in-Manila.pdf>.

54. See, for example, “Rights Groups Accuse AICHR of Lacking Transparency” Jakarta Post (10 June 2012), online: Jakarta Post <http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2012/06/10/rights-groups-accuse-aichr-lacking-transparency.html>, or “ASEAN: Regional Body Must Lead by Example and Place Transparency at its Core” Article 19 (5 May 2011), online: Article 19 <http://www.article19.org/resources.php/resource/1763/en/asean:-regional-body-must-lead-by-example-and-place-transparency-at-its-core>.

55. ASEAN Community in Figures, supra note 31 at 1.

56. Ibid., at 37.

57. Ibid., at 42.

58. Ibid., at 44.

59. Koh, and Robinson, , supra note18 at 642–643Google Scholar.

60. For more information on the various ASEAN states, see “CIA-The World Factbook”, online: Central Intelligence Agency <https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/index.html>.

61. See, for example, Paul Streeten's account of the decision not to incorporate a freedom index into the UNDP Human Development Index, referenced by MCNEILL, Desmond, “ ‘Human Development’: The Power of the Idea” (2007) 8 Journal of Human Development 5 at 15–16Google Scholar.

62. For an introduction to the Asian Values debate, see, for example, MAUZY, Diane K., “The Human Rights and ‘Asian Values’ Debate in Southeast Asia: Trying to Clarify the Key Issues” (1997) 10 Pacific Review 210CrossRefGoogle Scholar, or SUBRAMANIAM, Surain, “The Asian Values Debate: Implications for the Spread of Liberal Democracy” (2000) 27 Asian Affairs 19CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

63. Davis, et al., supra note 2 at 41Google Scholar.

64. Kingsbury, et al., supra note 6 at 17Google Scholar.

65. Ibid.

66. STEWART, Richard B., “Accountability, Participation, and the Problem of Disregard in Global Regulatory Governance” (Draft of January 2008)Google Scholar, online: Institute for International Law and Justice <http://www.iilj.org/courses/documents/2008Colloquium.Session4.Stewart.pdf> at 2.

67. Ibid.

68. Ibid.

69. Ibid.

70. Ibid., at 14.

71. Ibid., at 15.

72. See, for example, Kingsbury, et al., supra note 6 at 17Google Scholar.

73. ASEAN Framework of Cooperation in Statistics, supra note 9 at 2.

74. Art. 30(2) of the Charter of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, 20 November 2007 (entered into force 20 November 2007), online: ASEAN <http://www.asean.org/archive/publications/ASEAN-Charter.pdf> [ASEAN Charter].

75. Ibid., art. 30(3).

76. Stewart, , supra note 66 at 15Google Scholar.

77. ASEAN Statistical Yearbook 2010, supra note 10 at iii.

78. Stewart, , supra note 66 at 28Google Scholar.

79. Ibid., at 29.

80. Ibid., at 30.

81. Ibid.

82. Ibid., at 44–51.

83. Davidson, , supra note 15Google Scholar.

84. Dutta, , supra note 40 at 461Google Scholar.

85. Stewart, , supra note 66 at 31–32Google Scholar.

86. See Stewart, , supra note 66Google Scholar.

87. Ibid., at 33.

88. ASEAN Charter, supra note 74, art. 11(2)(b).

89. Stewart, , supra note 66 at 33Google Scholar.

90. Ibid.

91. “Transparency Overview-UNDP”, online: UNDP <http://www.undp.org/content/undp/en/home/operations/transparency/overview.html>.

92. “Information Disclosure Policy-UNDP”, online: UNDP <http://www.undp.org/content/undp/en/home/operations/transparency/information_disclosurepolicy.html>.

93. Ibid., at 34.

94. Ibid., at 35.

95. ASEAN Secretariat, ASEAN Statistical Indicators (Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, 1997).

96. For example, searches on the Lexis Advance legal database for “ASEAN Indicators” and “ASEAN Statistical Yearbook” only yielded one reference to each in academic journals. In contrast, a search for “Human Development Index” yielded 366 references.

97. “Key Indicators for Asia and the Pacific 2012-ADB”, online: ADB <http://www.adb.org/publications/key-indicators-asia-and-pacific-2012>.

98. ASEAN Framework of Cooperation in Statistics, supra note 9.

99. For a discussion of the different possible normative bases of GAL, see Kingsbury, et al., supra note 6 at 44–51Google Scholar.

100. Stewart, , supra note 66 at 51–52Google Scholar.

101. Ibid., at 54–7.

102. See, for example, “Support to the Strategic Plan for the Establishment of the ASEAN Community Statistical System (ACSS)”, online: PARIS21 <http://www.paris21.org/sites/default/files/concept-note-ASEAN.pdf>.

103. “ASEANstats Brochure 2011”, online: ASEAN <http://www.asean.org/images/2012/publications/ASEANSTAT%20Brochure%202011,%20Nov%202011.pdf>.